Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing that results are deliberately truncated and listing exactly which signals are included. It does not mention rate limits, caching, or latency, which would be the remaining useful behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence that leads with what the tool returns and closes with the upsell path to the paid endpoint. Every clause carries information, though the stacked field list reads a bit cramped.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the return fields and the verdict categories. Combined with 100% schema coverage on inputs, an agent has nearly everything needed; rate limits and truncation specifics are the only gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents base58 mint format and the default sizeUsd of 100. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond that, which matches the 3 baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Concrete verb+resource: it produces a free pre-swap verdict (CLEAR/CAUTION/AVOID) for a Solana mint, and enumerates the payload fields (truncated reasons, risk bucket, sell-route, liquidity bucket). This is specific enough to distinguish it from the paid endpoint it names, and no other sibling offers a free Solana mint swap verdict.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly frames itself as the free teaser and routes the agent to the paid alternative with exact price and rails ($0.01 USDC via x402 /swap-guard). It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when the full report is required), so it stops just short of 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.